After witnessing the excuse for a field at FedEx yesterday, I question natural grass fields. I love them, don't get me wrong, but when you have fields that cause or contribute to injury (RGIII, Clemons, Hauschka maybe), then should then NFL consider making Field Turf a standard for every team?

Yesterday's conditions were horrific at best, but yet not as bad as the field in Pittsburgh a few years ago... I recall a punt sticking directly in to the ground with no bounce. Seems like if the NFL is so concerned about safety, they may want to consider it.

I question them as well. There are a few sites that I could imagine the grass never being an issue, AZ (with their indoor / outdoor system) and Mia. Other than that? Grass has no business on an NFL field any longer. I know we think that we all prefer the natural look, etc. but it seriously affects the outcome of games, seasons and careers. As viewers we want the best possible product at all times, and unless we're talking about one of the stadiums mentions (as well as a few others perhaps) that has to mean field turf.

Grass is fine as long as the owner is willing to spend what it takes to keep it up. Look at Green Bay, natural grass with worse weather than D.C. and it's a good field because the team is willing to spend the money on it.

You are absolutely entitled to state your opinion whenever you wish, and I am absolutely entitled to point out the stupidity of that opinion with the same frequency.

SeatownJay wrote:Grass is fine as long as the owner is willing to spend what it takes to keep it up. Look at Green Bay, natural grass with worse weather than D.C. and it's a good field because the team is willing to spend the money on it.

So do you think the a similar rule applies to Chicago and Pittsburgh as well? Both those fields are pretty damn bad at times (although not as bad as Fed Ex last weekend).

I have no idea. But it could also be that there are significant climate differences between the two. Green Bay has colder weather for sure, but does that automatically make it worse? Sure it snows more, but maybe it's dryer. I don't know.

Green Bay spent hundreds of thousands of $ to install a warm water system under the field and keep it covered and protected for weeks. They did a nice promo on it recently and it was really interesting the trouble and money they spent to no longer have the Frozen Tundra.

Years ago the NFL threatened to move a game from a terrible stadium where the levels were different, holes, etc. They had NFL officials there to check the field prior to letting them play a monday night game I think it was. I can't remember the team.

From what riggo and many others said the field at DC is taken care of pretty well but is used a lot by high school teams and others so it gets a lot of abuse.

Grass fields can be great if maintained properly. If not? well you saw.

I had questioned the field after the 'boys game there because it was bad then and worse this week.

The fans want a better product but obviously the Redskins ownership isn't on board with that. They have already spent millions getting Griffin and may very likely have shortened his career with this injury. When is enough enough?

They need to use a combination of all three colleges, schools and Redskins to come up with a plan to put a field turf type playing surface in if it used that much. I can't remember if that Stadium is owned by Snyder as part of the Redskins or not. If it is then yeah it's all on him, I'm sure he makes everyone pay to use it plus parking and concessions, He can turn that around to make a better field.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

The NFL AM crew had one of the beat writers for one of the Washington papers on this morning and he said that he believes the Redskins decided to let the field get so bad due to Griffin's injury and they wanted the field to slow down opposing pass rushers.

It's one thing to risk your own franchise because you have a lousy field (how'd that work out, btw?). But it's another thing to put other teams' players at risk. The NFL should do more to regulate field conditions IMO. You'd think there'd be some playing standard.

An interesting note: a friend of my works for a firm that specializes in solar power, and the Redskins spent a pretty penny to upgrade their stadium to integrate solar power into their system. This may well be to save money in the long run, but I know it cost a lot, and Snyder was willing to write the check for that one, why he wasn't or isn't willing to pony up for the field is beyond me. If the latest on RGIII's injury status is true, it may have cost him in the long run.

SirTed wrote:An interesting note: a friend of my works for a firm that specializes in solar power, and the Redskins spent a pretty penny to upgrade their stadium to integrate solar power into their system. This may well be to save money in the long run, but I know it cost a lot, and Snyder was willing to write the check for that one, why he wasn't or isn't willing to pony up for the field is beyond me. If the latest on RGIII's injury status is true, it may have cost him in the long run.

i think grass fields are safer to play on, IF they are properly maintained.. field turf has it's advantages, but grass is softer and if maintained properly can be just as effective when running, cutting etc.. as field turf...